The Neighbors

[daveleo]

The May 27th issue of the New Yorker magazine got me clicking into this:

http://www.saulgallery.com/chronicle/svenson_2013.htm

The New Yorker notes that the photos were taken with a 500mm lens, through his windows and
his neighbors' without their knowledge and they were not informed about
the gallery exhibition. Under pressure, I believe, the photographer has since removed some photos of
neighbors children (again through their windows) from the exhibition.

My opinion is that this work is an invasion of privacy. It's actually offensive.
Maybe legal, but socially offensive.

 

[gns]

I saw that article too.
Invasive? OK, I guess that's somewhat the point. Offensive? Don't really see that.
I just didn't think the photographs were very interesting.

 

[daveleo]

I saw that article too.
Invasive? OK, I guess that's somewhat the point. Offensive? Don't really see that.
I just didn't think the photographs were very interesting.

I meant that the behavior was offensive, not referring to the photos.

 

[back alley]

and this is why i have blackout shades!

 

[KenR]

Kind of creepy to me - I will certainly make sure to close my shades!

 

[SausalitoDog]

Draw the blinds if you want privacy

 

[rwintle]

Interesting questions. In Canada I am reasonably certain this is illegal:

Criminal Code of Canada, 162. (1): (“Criminal Voyeurism”)
Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes – including by mechanical or electronic means – or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Of course, the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" is wide open to legal interpretation. The website I found this on further states that this "generally extends to include a person inside their own home, or anywhere where they have reason to believe is a private place." However, it's not an authoritative source. I imagine there's lots of case law around the code clause quoted above, but I am not versed in it.

Note that the legislation as written has nothing to do with what the person being "electronically recorded" is doing - i.e. I would think that the artist's photo of someone sleeping on a couch, for example, would be in violation.

Since the photographer and subjects are in New York, can someone there shed light on the U.S. (or State) legislation?

 

[Landshark]

In the US, subjects in public is fair game. The subjects in their own home(private property) I doubt is legal.

I'll give credit, no one is identifiable.

It's my opinion nothing else.

 

[SausalitoDog]

I may be wrong but I believe that if you are taking a photo from public property or your own property of something or someone who is in plain view from that site, there is no restriction other than from libel laws which would give damages if you were showing someone in an unfair negative situation.

In other words, the NYC photog has only broken the laws of good taste, if any...

 

[gb hill]

Couldn't the same be said for street photography? Oh wait...it already has.😉

 

[Sunti]

This is just wrong.

 

[lynnb]

There was an article on PetaPixel about this - also another thread here, I think in the Philosophy of Photography forum..

 

[rfaspen]

In the US, it is an individuals' "reasonable expectation of privacy" that is the criterion. A typical house or apartment is going to be interpreted as a location where an individual has reasonable expectation of privacy nearly 100% of the time by nearly 100% of courts and lawyers. It would only be a very unusual circumstance of a house/apartment that would not be interpreted this way. For example, a house built and owned by a television studio, fitted with cameras in each room, and occupied by people who have signed contracts agreeing to the filming of their activities in such house would be an exception, and even then, I bet someone could still get the topic before a court for serious consideration. The photos specified in the OP are not legal, but until someone contests them, they are not unlawful to view and publish. The publication is risky though... civil damages can accrue and are likely to be awarded.

I would not advise photographing people in their homes. Their pets, well you could get away with that. Their plants, again, you can get away with it. But, its an awfully risky thing to do. Especially if the inhabitats are lawyers! Now, you can photograph freely in "public spaces" where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That includes, restaurants, massage parlors, churches, dance halls, roller rinks, classrooms, theaters, streets, parking lots, stores, shopping malls, subways and all other forms of public transportation including taxis, and a whole bunch of other places. The only very odd exception is courtrooms. Some courtrooms in the US are not available to photography. You can attend and photograph with your eyes and brain, but not a camera. Doctors offices are another place you might not be allowed to photograph. But you can see that your options are not terribly limited in the US.

Get out there and make photos of good taste, poor taste, and whatever. Just please don't photograph me in my house (in my skivvys!).

 

[Darthfeeble]

PKR, How is digital to blame?

 

[semi-ambivalent]

PKR, How is digital to blame?

Because of digital's ease of capture and dissemination, of course. This, and the markets that have grown up around those qualities. Analog has it's bottom feeders too, always has, but digital lends itself especially well to the nature of image distribution/consumption en vogue nowadays.

The images are devoid of worthwhile content, by the way, but galleries have bills to pay so I don't think that will stand in the way of them ramming home some sales. Investment money is chasing the darndest things.

I'd also bet that, in spite of the lack of identity of the subjects (ooo, post-modernist existential angst!) if authorities were to seize the hard disks one might be rather surprised at the non-anonymous images captured as well.

s-a

 

[daveleo]

. . . . . I'd also bet that, in spite of the lack of identity of the subjects (ooo, post-modernist existential angst!) if authorities were to seize the hard disks one might be rather surprised at the non-anonymous images captured as well.

s-a

Yes, I am sure that would be the case (though of course we are
speculating). The gallery agreed to hang pictures with unidentifiable
people, probably anticipating legal challenges. However, I'd wager my
shoes there's lots of (let's say) private images on that guys hard drive -
unless his lawyer has already had him destroy the drive.

Again, my opinion is that this is bad social behavior at best (even if it is allowed by the law).
People could label it "predatory" and I wouldn't disagree, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Murchu]

I think this sort of behaviour, or perhaps risk of this sort of behaviour, is probably what was behind Sweden's recent legislation which I understand has banned photography where there is an expectation of privacy. Perhaps a prophylactic move on their part ?

 

[jsrockit]

Yeah, seems creepy to me.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

How sad, bored and bereft of ideas about what look at and what others might find vaguely interesting does one have to be to produce and post that? IMO, it is at best voyeuristic and intrusive and at worst perverse and weird.

The fact that there are such people out there with 500mm lenses is why I close my curtains when I'm in the house, lounging around the place.

Wherever the photos were taken from doesn't make them any less creepy in my estimation....

 

[petronius]

Does anyone remember the series "Dirty Windows" (1995) or "Shopping" (1999) by Merry Alpern ?
Other stuff than these pictures.

It seems to me that the people in Svenson´s photos care much less about their visibility than the people who look at the photos.